It was not a war that was started to defend slavery. It was a war that was started in order to force the South to remain part of the Union. And, yes, I know that the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. But the North started that war and the motivation wasn't to end slavery.dbackjon wrote:
So putting up a statue to celebrate a war that was started to defend slavery, .
Campus Happenings
- JohnStOnge
- Egalitarian
- Posts: 20313
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
- I am a fan of: McNeese State
- A.K.A.: JohnStOnge
Re: Campus Happenings
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?
Deep Purple: No One Came
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: Campus Happenings
DON’TJohnStOnge wrote:It was not a war that was started to defend slavery. It was a war that was started in order to force the South to remain part of the Union. And, yes, I know that the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. But the North started that war and the motivation wasn't to end slavery.dbackjon wrote:
So putting up a statue to celebrate a war that was started to defend slavery, .
Please
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Campus Happenings
JohnStOnge wrote:It was not a war that was started to defend slavery. It was a war that was started in order to force the South to remain part of the Union. And, yes, I know that the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. But the North started that war and the motivation wasn't to end slavery.dbackjon wrote:
So putting up a statue to celebrate a war that was started to defend slavery, .
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: Campus Happenings
Also, I have to acknowledge it when it happens...
JSO is absolutely correct above.
And he said it in under 500 words!
JSO is absolutely correct above.
And he said it in under 500 words!
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Re: Campus Happenings
The North benefited greatly from slavery. It didn't begin to abolish slavery....it began to keep the country together and if that meant allowing slavery to continue then Lincoln accepted that. Emancipation wasn't a primary objective.JohnStOnge wrote:It was not a war that was started to defend slavery. It was a war that was started in order to force the South to remain part of the Union. And, yes, I know that the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. But the North started that war and the motivation wasn't to end slavery.dbackjon wrote:
So putting up a statue to celebrate a war that was started to defend slavery, .
But the South did secede to keep their slaves...aka States Rights. That fact is undeniable.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Campus Happenings
The "who started the war" is something JSO is potentially incorrect on as well - the South started seceding in December of 1860, a good 3-4 months before Lincoln even took office. Started to seize federal facilities and munitions as well. And, as JSO said, the South did fire the first shot. Those are all things that go into the "South started the war" checklist when going over things that started the war.Ibanez wrote:The North benefited greatly from slavery. It didn't begin to abolish slavery....it began to keep the country together and if that meant allowing slavery to continue then Lincoln accepted that. Emancipation wasn't a primary objective.JohnStOnge wrote:
It was not a war that was started to defend slavery. It was a war that was started in order to force the South to remain part of the Union. And, yes, I know that the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. But the North started that war and the motivation wasn't to end slavery.
But the South did secede to keep their slaves...aka States Rights. That fact is undeniable.
And yes, the South did it all to defend slavery - so saying they didn't do it to defend slavery is silly. Without slavery, the South never secedes, no matter how committed they were to states rights on other issues.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: Campus Happenings
JSO is just wrong. The war was begun over slavery. End of story. Maintaining the institution of slavery is why the South seceded.GannonFan wrote:The "who started the war" is something JSO is potentially incorrect on as well - the South started seceding in December of 1860, a good 3-4 months before Lincoln even took office. Started to seize federal facilities and munitions as well. And, as JSO said, the South did fire the first shot. Those are all things that go into the "South started the war" checklist when going over things that started the war.Ibanez wrote:
The North benefited greatly from slavery. It didn't begin to abolish slavery....it began to keep the country together and if that meant allowing slavery to continue then Lincoln accepted that. Emancipation wasn't a primary objective.
But the South did secede to keep their slaves...aka States Rights. That fact is undeniable.
And yes, the South did it all to defend slavery - so saying they didn't do it to defend slavery is silly. Without slavery, the South never secedes, no matter how committed they were to states rights on other issues.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Campus Happenings
GannonFan wrote:The "who started the war" is something JSO is potentially incorrect on as well - the South started seceding in December of 1860, a good 3-4 months before Lincoln even took office. Started to seize federal facilities and munitions as well. And, as JSO said, the South did fire the first shot. Those are all things that go into the "South started the war" checklist when going over things that started the war.Ibanez wrote:
The North benefited greatly from slavery. It didn't begin to abolish slavery....it began to keep the country together and if that meant allowing slavery to continue then Lincoln accepted that. Emancipation wasn't a primary objective.
But the South did secede to keep their slaves...aka States Rights. That fact is undeniable.
And yes, the South did it all to defend slavery - so saying they didn't do it to defend slavery is silly. Without slavery, the South never secedes, no matter how committed they were to states rights on other issues.
Have to agree with this. One negative out of the civil war is the federal government began to control more land than they did before the war. While states rights were an issue, the issue would not have occurred without slavery.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by css75 on Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: Campus Happenings
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: Campus Happenings
Well fvck
That WAS a .gif
That WAS a .gif
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
- Bisonfanatical
- Level1
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:54 am
Re: RE: Re: Campus Happenings
Someone would have to show me that the south DECLARED that when they fired the first shot at Ft Sumpter ... it was over slaves.GannonFan wrote:The "who started the war" is something JSO is potentially incorrect on as well - the South started seceding in December of 1860, a good 3-4 months before Lincoln even took office. Started to seize federal facilities and munitions as well. And, as JSO said, the South did fire the first shot. Those are all things that go into the "South started the war" checklist when going over things that started the war.Ibanez wrote:
The North benefited greatly from slavery. It didn't begin to abolish slavery....it began to keep the country together and if that meant allowing slavery to continue then Lincoln accepted that. Emancipation wasn't a primary objective.
But the South did secede to keep their slaves...aka States Rights. That fact is undeniable.
And yes, the South did it all to defend slavery - so saying they didn't do it to defend slavery is silly. Without slavery, the South never secedes, no matter how committed they were to states rights on other issues.
Just find one history book to back it up ... the winner writes history, must be thousands of books stating that?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Campus Happenings
Schools have failed you. Nobody is going to say that a declaration like that was spoken before we fired on Ft. Sumter. It would behoove you to educate yourself. If you want the Southern version of events or rational, go read the Ordinances of Secession from SC, Texas, Alabama, Virginia. Read “The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” Or the "Address to the People of the Slaveholding States," which cites the institution of slavery, as well as Southern taxes being disproportionately apportioned to the North.Bisonfanatical wrote:Someone would have to show me that the south DECLARED that when they fired the first shot at Ft Sumpter ... it was over slaves.GannonFan wrote:
The "who started the war" is something JSO is potentially incorrect on as well - the South started seceding in December of 1860, a good 3-4 months before Lincoln even took office. Started to seize federal facilities and munitions as well. And, as JSO said, the South did fire the first shot. Those are all things that go into the "South started the war" checklist when going over things that started the war.
And yes, the South did it all to defend slavery - so saying they didn't do it to defend slavery is silly. Without slavery, the South never secedes, no matter how committed they were to states rights on other issues.
Just find one history book to back it up ... the winner writes history, must be thousands of books stating that?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Or how about Mississippi, which cites in it's Secession declaration:
You owe it to yourself to attempt to read and comprehend history. Yes, the victors write the history books, but there's plenty of primary documentation from the Southern states, there was a 35 year period before 1860 which is accurately and well documented showing that slavery was going to be a cause.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world
Hopefully, you can draw the line between secession the war. One begat another.
Consider this my spiritual work of mercy.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Campus Happenings
Yup, when all was said and done, from the founding of the country (say 1776, or say 1787, whichever you like), through the Constitutional Convention, through the compromises of 1820 and 1850, slavery was always the underlying, if not overt reason for most of the conflicts in the country. Without slavery we don't have a Civil War. Nothing revisionist about that, just the reality.Ibanez wrote:Schools have failed you. Nobody is going to say that a declaration like that was spoken before we fired on Ft. Sumter. It would behoove you to educate yourself. If you want the Southern version of events or rational, go read the Ordinances of Secession from SC, Texas, Alabama, Virginia. Read “The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” Or the "Address to the People of the Slaveholding States," which cites the institution of slavery, as well as Southern taxes being disproportionately apportioned to the North.Bisonfanatical wrote:
Someone would have to show me that the south DECLARED that when they fired the first shot at Ft Sumpter ... it was over slaves.
Just find one history book to back it up ... the winner writes history, must be thousands of books stating that?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Or how about Mississippi, which cites in it's Secession declaration:You owe it to yourself to attempt to read and comprehend history. Yes, the victors write the history books, but there's plenty of primary documentation from the Southern states, there was a 35 year period before 1860 which is accurately and well documented showing that slavery was going to be a cause.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world
Hopefully, you can draw the line between secession the war. One begat another.
Consider this my spiritual work of mercy.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: Campus Happenings
Bisonfanatic will dispute that b/c there's no official, written or proclaimed declaration of war from the CSA stating it was over slavery. But that's besides the point.GannonFan wrote:Yup, when all was said and done, from the founding of the country (say 1776, or say 1787, whichever you like), through the Constitutional Convention, through the compromises of 1820 and 1850, slavery was always the underlying, if not overt reason for most of the conflicts in the country. Without slavery we don't have a Civil War. Nothing revisionist about that, just the reality.Ibanez wrote: Schools have failed you. Nobody is going to say that a declaration like that was spoken before we fired on Ft. Sumter. It would behoove you to educate yourself. If you want the Southern version of events or rational, go read the Ordinances of Secession from SC, Texas, Alabama, Virginia. Read “The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” Or the "Address to the People of the Slaveholding States," which cites the institution of slavery, as well as Southern taxes being disproportionately apportioned to the North.
Or how about Mississippi, which cites in it's Secession declaration:
You owe it to yourself to attempt to read and comprehend history. Yes, the victors write the history books, but there's plenty of primary documentation from the Southern states, there was a 35 year period before 1860 which is accurately and well documented showing that slavery was going to be a cause.
Hopefully, you can draw the line between secession the war. One begat another.
Consider this my spiritual work of mercy.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: Campus Happenings
-double post-
Last edited by 93henfan on Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Re: Campus Happenings
Slavery was certainly a major component of the South’s biggest concern: States’ rights. But it wasn’t the only component.
This was a concern since the founding of the nation and continues to this day. Do you want a Government dominated by densely populated blips on the map, or do you want a more balanced system where the rights of the little guy and the farmer are balanced with those of the blue bloods and the city dwellers?
This was a concern since the founding of the nation and continues to this day. Do you want a Government dominated by densely populated blips on the map, or do you want a more balanced system where the rights of the little guy and the farmer are balanced with those of the blue bloods and the city dwellers?
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
Re: Campus Happenings
Right - that concern certainly still exists. It's one reason we have the Electoral College.93henfan wrote:Slavery was certainly a major component of the South’s biggest concern: States’ rights. But it wasn’t the only component.
This was a concern since the founding of the nation and continues to this day. Do you want a Government dominated by densely populated blips on the map, or do you want a more balanced system where the rights of the little guy and the farmer are balanced with those of the blue bloods and the city dwellers?
And this is NOT a lecture to you, 93, just an overall comment:
But this is where you confuse and lose the Lost Causers - slavery was the States' Rights that they felt was being infringed. The right of self-determination as the state saw fit, as we fought for in 1776, was at risk.
And, for good or for bad, the South was being treated differently b/c of their "peculiar institution." "An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, " was cited by SC and in other terms, by each of the seceding states. Essentially, the South didn't like that the North allowed blacks to vote, didn't recognize "slave transit" (among other slave-related issues) and that the Federal Gov't, under Lincoln, would work to abolish slavery. Lincoln's anti-slavery views were well known and there was fear that the Southern economy would be destroyed (which it eventually was, at their own hands).
The tariffs argument isn't exactly accurate as well. After the Nullification Crisis, in which SC threatened to secede over high tariffs but eventually backed down, it was southerners that wrote the Tariff of 1857 which they were operating under in 1860.
Anyone that tells you the South went to war for anything other than the preservation of slavery is either un-informed, an idiot or both.
Anyone that tells you the Union went to war to free the slaves is either un-informed, an idiot or both.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14419
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: Campus Happenings
The states also weren't uniform blocks.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession before Ft Sumter. Their articles of secession read very differently than the states that voted to secede immediately.
Northeastern states that were a hotbed of abolitionism like Massachusetts fought from the beginning to free slaves and their states tried to get Lincoln to be more of a hardliner. States like Illinois and Indiana were not interested in abolition - especially in the "butternut" southern halves.
The radicals on both sides caused the war. And slavery was the issue. Moderate states like Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee probably could have reached a compromise on their own.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession before Ft Sumter. Their articles of secession read very differently than the states that voted to secede immediately.
Northeastern states that were a hotbed of abolitionism like Massachusetts fought from the beginning to free slaves and their states tried to get Lincoln to be more of a hardliner. States like Illinois and Indiana were not interested in abolition - especially in the "butternut" southern halves.
The radicals on both sides caused the war. And slavery was the issue. Moderate states like Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee probably could have reached a compromise on their own.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: Campus Happenings
There was also a smaller civil war going on within western NC and eastern TN - those areas were largely unionist, and the economy in that area (such as it was) did not depend on slave labor. UNC Press has a very good book called “The War in the Mountains” about the conflict that pretty much went on in western NC during the entire Civil War.Skjellyfetti wrote:The states also weren't uniform blocks.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession before Ft Sumter. Their articles of secession read very differently than the states that voted to secede immediately.
Northeastern states that were a hotbed of abolitionism like Massachusetts fought from the beginning to free slaves and their states tried to get Lincoln to be more of a hardliner. States like Illinois and Indiana were not interested in abolition - especially in the "butternut" southern halves.
The radicals on both sides caused the war. And slavery was the issue. Moderate states like Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee probably could have reached a compromise on their own.
In fact, the situation was the same that caused the creation of West Virginia - if NC and TN had shared any common border with a Union territory, they likely would have split off and joined the Union the way WVA did
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Re: Campus Happenings
Those internal struggles were often in places far from the rivers and coastlines that were the lifeline of plantations. Kentucky had the same struggle.CID1990 wrote:There was also a smaller civil war going on within western NC and eastern TN - those areas were largely unionist, and the economy in that area (such as it was) did not depend on slave labor. UNC Press has a very good book called “The War in the Mountains” about the conflict that pretty much went on in western NC during the entire Civil War.Skjellyfetti wrote:The states also weren't uniform blocks.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession before Ft Sumter. Their articles of secession read very differently than the states that voted to secede immediately.
Northeastern states that were a hotbed of abolitionism like Massachusetts fought from the beginning to free slaves and their states tried to get Lincoln to be more of a hardliner. States like Illinois and Indiana were not interested in abolition - especially in the "butternut" southern halves.
The radicals on both sides caused the war. And slavery was the issue. Moderate states like Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee probably could have reached a compromise on their own.
In fact, the situation was the same that caused the creation of West Virginia - if NC and TN had shared any common border with a Union territory, they likely would have split off and joined the Union the way WVA did
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14419
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: Campus Happenings
Yeah.CID1990 wrote:There was also a smaller civil war going on within western NC and eastern TN - those areas were largely unionist, and the economy in that area (such as it was) did not depend on slave labor. UNC Press has a very good book called “The War in the Mountains” about the conflict that pretty much went on in western NC during the entire Civil War.Skjellyfetti wrote:The states also weren't uniform blocks.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession before Ft Sumter. Their articles of secession read very differently than the states that voted to secede immediately.
Northeastern states that were a hotbed of abolitionism like Massachusetts fought from the beginning to free slaves and their states tried to get Lincoln to be more of a hardliner. States like Illinois and Indiana were not interested in abolition - especially in the "butternut" southern halves.
The radicals on both sides caused the war. And slavery was the issue. Moderate states like Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee probably could have reached a compromise on their own.
In fact, the situation was the same that caused the creation of West Virginia - if NC and TN had shared any common border with a Union territory, they likely would have split off and joined the Union the way WVA did
Wish western NC and eastern TN could have split off on their own.
Area around Boone - "the Lost Provinces" - was always economically linked more to eastern Tennessee than Raleigh. Less so now - after the Tweetsie stopped and then 421 expanded.
Some App fans that don't know the history are very confused why we play the "Tennessee Waltz" after football games.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Chizzang
- Level5
- Posts: 19273
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
- I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
- A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
- Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...
Re: Campus Happenings
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
- CID1990
- Level5
- Posts: 25460
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: Campus Happenings
Quite frankly, I think east TN / western NC would have made a very nice state.Skjellyfetti wrote:Yeah.CID1990 wrote:
There was also a smaller civil war going on within western NC and eastern TN - those areas were largely unionist, and the economy in that area (such as it was) did not depend on slave labor. UNC Press has a very good book called “The War in the Mountains” about the conflict that pretty much went on in western NC during the entire Civil War.
In fact, the situation was the same that caused the creation of West Virginia - if NC and TN had shared any common border with a Union territory, they likely would have split off and joined the Union the way WVA did
Wish western NC and eastern TN could have split off on their own.
Area around Boone - "the Lost Provinces" - was always economically linked more to eastern Tennessee than Raleigh. Less so now - after the Tweetsie stopped and then 421 expanded.
Some App fans that don't know the history are very confused why we play the "Tennessee Waltz" after football games.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris